Is there an alternative understanding of Acts 13:32?...
Problem is, we each mean something different when we each assert "historic" this or that.
I am at least aware of that. You are not.
You think you are right because you think you are.
You have yet proven you actually are.
You can't because you hold to an approach and I hold to another :crackup:
This is also the case within your different understanding on some things from that of the understanding of your fellow Preterists, and vice versa.
As it is within the different understandings on some things between MADs.
You hold that, Matt. 24B: Christ did not return. Some of your own hold otherwise.
I hold that Romans 2:17 is referring to unbelieving sons of Jacob. Some MADs hold that Paul is referring to Gentiles as proselytes.
Round and round we all go.
I figure I might as well take all views in from a sense of humour.
You, well; you do your thing - misunderstand :chuckle:
Your every post on Acts 13 is said alternative understanding :chuckle:
At the same time; in fairness, I have to wonder sometimes if throughout the history of faith, these differences in understanding are nothing more than one more case of something similar to how some people see a bottle as half empty; others see it as half full, and both are arguing the other is wrong :crackup:
I think I'll go with that and take a chill pill - I would suggest you consider doing likewise...
Or not :rotfl:
What is my alternative understanding to 'whatever promises were made to the fathers are fulfilled in the resurrection' an alternative to?
You're too busy with 'noise' about things.
90% of what you say is defensive, triumphalist and not on topic. I don't know any more today about what you think Acts 13 means than 2 years ago.
It means that the resurrection is the proof of God providing the promised forgiveness of sins through Christ, and it joins Rom 4:25B on that. That fulfills all the promises to the fathers.
post #900 in which you simply won't say in your own words what Acts 13's punchline is about